Also...if you tyink R%C will sell on brand name alone, then get ready to be dissapointed. Check the PSP version sales. About 200k in USA, 60k in Japan. Don`t expect the PS3 version to get over 500k-600k.

It is what it is.....95% of the people looking forward to this game and 95% of the people that will buy this game are expecting R&C, not new gameplay or innovation we are expecting R&C in their universe with immersive graphics and some fun weapons, its light heartedly, its simple and they will deliver.

On another note, the multiplayer, if they knock this game for no mulitplayer, R&C, then i expect Metroid or Bioshock should not deserve over an 8.5, but then again, when have we seen objectivity from videogame review sites. 

It is kind of interesting with Mario. After the runaway success of SMW they make SM64, a totally different game. That game sells millions and a identical sequel would have sold millions more, but instead they make a totally different game, Sunshine. Now there making Galaxy, something totally different from any other game.

Not saying that Nintendo doesn't do repetition (SuperSmashBros series, Pokemon series) but I do have to give them credit with the Mario franchise.

Well I loved all the previous R&C games... of course I bought 3 of them in a $20 eBay auction a month ago, and the PSP one I paid $15 for off half.com.... I already owned a PS2 as well. I think for a completely unchanged formula, prettier graphics, and the removal of multiplayer (a feature I loved in Up Your Arsenal), I'm very unlikely to pay $600 to play this game. Still, this is just one guy's opinion and I'll be sure to pay attention to future reviews.

It isn't just a question of innovation -- it's a call to bring something new and interesting to the table with regards to the series. They could take ideas from another game or series and integrate them into their game, and if it's awesome that's great. It sounds like parts of the game are tedius and boring, and the whole game is basically a simple sequel with very little different from the previous incarnations.

Look at the way Super Mario progressed. The very basic ideas are identical, but the ways in which you execute them are completely different.  SMB, SMB2 and SMB3 were quite different, SMW and Super Mario 64 were both big changes to the franchise.

Look at the way Blizzard split off their Starcraft and Warcraft series of RTS games -- they've completely changed the mechanics of Warcraft w/ WC3 so it would provide a different experience from Starcraft.  They're keeping the play similar but fresh.

The changes don't have to be huge, but there needs to be some new ideas tied to every sequel or you'll just end up playing the same game for an extra $60.  Improving the graphics is easy although tedius work.  You simply throw manpower at the problem.  Spending time in the design phase being creative and coming up with new ideas which are inherantly risky requires far more energy than simply saying, "This formula worked before -- duplicate it and make it look better."